Religion in the way of science?

[Ryan Bailey]

Yes friends, the textbooks are full of alleged proofs of evolution. So disproven that no one here has had the fortitude to bring them up. This nicely proves my point for me once again.

The scientific method is the agreed upon basis of all human education, we disregard it at the peril of our very credibility.

Darwinism does not meet these criteria, even though the schools of the west teach that it does. This deception is what we have here successfully exposed.

Thank you for permitting me what Ben Stein calls; "The freedom to legitimately challenge “Big Science’s” orthodoxy…without persecution."

[Ryan Bailey]

For reference about my unchallenged assertions:

Of all the types of "evolution" I agree that only adaptation is scientifically proveable....
If you categorise this as one of the types of evolution, then I am an evolutionist. below I cite two of my fellow ID Truth-seekers. Stein & Hovind who categorise the subject into three and six subdivisions respectively, thus:

Ben Stein:
"Darwin’s theory isn’t a single idea. Instead, it is made up of several related ideas, each supported by specific arguments. Of the three, only Evolution #1 can be said to be scientifically “settled.”

Evolution #1: First, evolution can mean minor changes in features of individual species – changes that take place gradually over a (relatively) modest period of time.
Evolution #2: The Theory of Universal Common Descent - the idea that all the organisms we see today are descended from a single common ancestor somewhere in the distant past. This theory paints a picture of the history of life on earth as a great branching tree, from a single cell that “somehow” materialized.
Evolution #3: A cause or mechanism of change, the biological process Darwin thought was responsible for this branching pattern. Darwin argued that natural selection had the power to produce fundamentally new forms of life. Together, the ideas of Universal Common Descent and natural selection form the core of Darwinian evolutionary theory. “Neo – Darwinian” evolution combines our knowledge of DNA and genetics to claim that mutations in DNA provide the variation upon which natural selection acts."

Kent Hovind:
"Students in tax-supported schools are being taught that evolution is a fact. We are convinced that evolution is a religion masquerading as science and should not be part of any science curriculum. It has nothing to do with the subject of science. There are at least six different and unrelated meanings to the word �evolution� as used in science textbooks.

Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang.
Chemical evolution- the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
Stellar and planetary evolution- Origin of stars and planets.
Organic evolution- Origin of life from inanimate matter.
Macroevolution- Origin of major kinds.
Microevolution Variations within kinds- Only this one has been observed, the first five are religious. They are believed, by faith, even though there is no empirical evidence to prove them in any way. While I admire the great faith of the evolutionists who accept the first five I object to having this religious propaganda included in with legitimate science at taxpayer�s expense"

Hope this helps some of you fellow men of the scientific method who like me seek to avoid prejudice on this issue.

Still waiting for someone to offer a "proof" of evolution so I can disprove it.

And waiting...And waiting...

[T_igger_cs_30]

For reference about my unchallenged assertions:

Of all the types of "evolution" I agree that only adaptation is scientifically proveable....
If you categorise this as one of the types of evolution, then I am an evolutionist. below I cite two of my fellow ID Truth-seekers. Stein & Hovind who categorise the subject into three and six subdivisions respectively, thus:

Ben Stein:
"Darwin’s theory isn’t a single idea. Instead, it is made up of several related ideas, each supported by specific arguments. Of the three, only Evolution #1 can be said to be scientifically “settled.”

Evolution #1: First, evolution can mean minor changes in features of individual species – changes that take place gradually over a (relatively) modest period of time.
Evolution #2: The Theory of Universal Common Descent - the idea that all the organisms we see today are descended from a single common ancestor somewhere in the distant past. This theory paints a picture of the history of life on earth as a great branching tree, from a single cell that “somehow” materialized.
Evolution #3: A cause or mechanism of change, the biological process Darwin thought was responsible for this branching pattern. Darwin argued that natural selection had the power to produce fundamentally new forms of life. Together, the ideas of Universal Common Descent and natural selection form the core of Darwinian evolutionary theory. “Neo – Darwinian” evolution combines our knowledge of DNA and genetics to claim that mutations in DNA provide the variation upon which natural selection acts."

Kent Hovind:
"Students in tax-supported schools are being taught that evolution is a fact. We are convinced that evolution is a religion masquerading as science and should not be part of any science curriculum. It has nothing to do with the subject of science. There are at least six different and unrelated meanings to the word �evolution� as used in science textbooks.

Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang.
Chemical evolution- the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
Stellar and planetary evolution- Origin of stars and planets.
Organic evolution- Origin of life from inanimate matter.
Macroevolution- Origin of major kinds.
Microevolution Variations within kinds- Only this one has been observed, the first five are religious. They are believed, by faith, even though there is no empirical evidence to prove them in any way. While I admire the great faith of the evolutionists who accept the first five I object to having this religious propaganda included in with legitimate science at taxpayer�s expense"

Hope this helps some of you fellow men of the scientific method who like me seek to avoid prejudice on this issue.

Still waiting for someone to offer a "proof" of evolution so I can disprove it.

And waiting...And waiting...

How could we mere mortals disprove the almighty Ryan :))

[Ryan Bailey]

No friend, do not give me too much credit.

This subject deserves a legitimate dialogue.

I just happen to be the only willing to enter into it.

[Ray]

Religion is a science of indoctrination.

[Officer of Engineers]

What is the difference between the Big Bang and "Let there be light?"

[Repatriated Canuck]

For one, I never believed in the Virgin Mary. I think she got knocked up without being married so she just made up a story. Premarital sex back then was a no no.

Those so-called prophecies? I believe they were stories back dated to make them in to a prophecy. The prediction of the arrival of Jesus was written after his arrival.

I don't know enough about miracles in other religions to comment.

There is also devil children that nuns birthed after being raped by demons. Or they just banged a priest....

The Jesus story certainly is a good one though but I never believed the immaculate conception crap. Even as a kid it didn't sit well with me.

I love a good story though and as Chopper Reid says "Never let the truth get in the way of a good yarn".

[Ryan Bailey]

What is the difference between the Big Bang and "Let there be light?"

Agreed. There is no effective difference in these two expressions of faith.

To quote myself, whether we teach "in the beginning God" or "in the beginning goo" in public schools, we still violate the principles of a "separation of church & state", if you like, since as our scotch tasting friend connotes, "what is the difference"?

I am thankful that like myself, many of the intelligent "boarders" here detect the disingenuity inherent in present indoctrination of our yuung with a religion fonded on no science; namely darwinism.

I continue to be more & more impressed with the high calibre of discussion available here.

Bully.:)

[T_igger_cs_30]

For one, I never believed in the Virgin Mary. I think she got knocked up without being married so she just made up a story. Premarital sex back then was a no no.

Those so-called prophecies? I believe they were stories back dated to make them in to a prophecy. The prediction of the arrival of Jesus was written after his arrival.

I don't know enough about miracles in other religions to comment.

There is also devil children that nuns birthed after being raped by demons. Or they just banged a priest....

The Jesus story certainly is a good one though but I never believed the immaculate conception crap. Even as a kid it didn't sit well with me.

I love a good story though and as Chopper Reid says "Never let the truth get in the way of a good yarn".

Oh you guys.............next you will be telling us there is no Father Christmas :))

[Officer of Engineers]

Agreed. There is no effective difference in these two expressions of faith.

Except for the fact that one derived from observed gravitational peformances of intestellar bodies and the other was one borned out of complete ignorance of spacial physics.

The Big Bang came about because of Sir Issac Newton's observation of gravity. "Let there be light" is a complete faith expression.

And yet, both are accurate to a T when describing the creation of the univierse according to known mathematics.

[Repatriated Canuck]

Oh you guys.............next you will be telling us there is no Father Christmas :))

What do you mean? He comes to my house every year since I was little!!!


As for the newer posts. I can't wrap my head around forever and always so I let my imagination run wild especially with all the theories of alternate dimensions and the countless other things I read which I barely understand.

Sometimes I have a very hard time believing in god and so I look at it a different way to give myself hope that there is something after death. For some reason death scares the crap out of me. What I fear is that we just die and that's it, game over. So I come up with if there has always been something of some sort who's to say that something could not have evolved into some supreme being?

Even that is a very human way of looking at it as we live in the third dimension and can't understand the fourth, time.

What if there is something in our universe that also lives in the forth hence forever and always. God, or Gods or hell I don't know but I sure hope to find out when I bite it.

[Officer of Engineers]

Religion is a personal thing. I don't accept self proclaimed sons of God and I certainly don't believe anything holy about the Dali Lama nor the Pope.

But when you see a puppy jumping for joy for a little stick and a little girl laughing her head off, it's hard not to appreciate such wondrous beauty and appreciate that there is more than a little coicidence in these matters.

[Ryan Bailey]

..... it's hard not to appreciate such wondrous beauty and appreciate that there is more than a little coicidence in these matters.

Very well spoken.

















I feel your eloquence more than makes up for the overbearing smell of scotch on you.:))

[Officer of Engineers]

I feel your eloquence more than makes up for the overbearing smell of scotch on you.:))

They're one and the same, good Sir.

[Repatriated Canuck]

But when you see a puppy jumping for joy for a little stick and a little girl laughing her head off, it's hard not to appreciate such wondrous beauty and appreciate that there is more than a little coincidence in these matters.

You always have a way to break something complicated down into a short statement that gets your message across.


Nice one.